User talk:Dereckson/Archives/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you made an addition to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users which broke the table layout a little.

{{qfi|isafmedia|29456680@N06|The profile indicate another license than the pictures, restricting use to media and educational source, but denying commercial reproduction and general redistribution.}}

should be:

{{qfi|isafmedia|isafmedia|29456680@N06|The profile indicate another license than the pictures, restricting use to media and educational source, but denying commercial reproduction and general redistribution.}}

The reason for that is that isafmedia has the same screen name (name shown on the profile page) and alphabetic ID (part of the URL). I know, the template is pretty complicated, which is partly my fault for making it that way and partly Flickr's fault for having three parallel user ID systems. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I note screen name, url name of account (pro the screen name, non pro the id), id, description. --Dereckson (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sir Jim Dutton and Matthieu Borsboom.jpg[edit]

Please restore this, and any others from ISAF you've deleted. The image is clearly licensed under CC-BY. That they have since chosen to add a contradictory statement to their profile on Flickr is unfortunate, but Wikimedia-wide policy is that Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, and the position has always been that we can continue using such images, despite a later change of the license on Flickr. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i. The image couldn't be licensed under CC-BY if their profile say otherwise, it's clearly an error. The correct license is "Images uploaded to Flickr are for the free intended use for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products. They are not, however, and in accordance to Flickr policy, to be used with the intention of reproducing and selling the images without prior consent of the releasing authority, or by extension, the photographer whose name should be included in the description. Please credit "Photo by ISAF Public Affairs" unless otherwise noted. The releasing authority is the Public Affairs Officer for ISAF Headquarters or any persons designated by the Public Affairs Officer, any of whom can be contacted at pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int.". You can't read that and say in good faith, they ADDED this statement AFTER the photos publication.
ii. The majority of images (but not the one you cite) doesn't belong to ISAF but to other armies services, who give them to ISAF. ISAF, as a press distributor, isn't the copyright holder. Your image is an ISAF one, but still, we don't have any proof the person selecting CC-BY in their Flickr profile were authorized to do so. I'm sorry, it's a Flickr washing/laundering case and not a change of mind of a copyright holder, ie the photos were never licensed under CC-BY.
iii. The policy you quote is that licenses are irrecovable, and you know it, as you say "we can continue using such images, despite a later change of the license on Flickr". We're here not in a change of license, but a license error. --Dereckson (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please undelete the image and argue your case at DR. If you need that much text to explain a speedy deletion, it's not incontrovertible, and so not a speedy. "Flickr washing" is a gross assumption of bad faith, both of me as the uploader, and of the Flickr account holder. I am frankly astounded that you can say the images were never CC-By when they are quite clearly licensed that way, and that you would go on to say we have no proof that they are authorised to release the image when the very profile page you cite (and I maintain that there was no such statement there when I uploaded the images—in good faith, I might add, despite your allegation to the contrary, which I invite you to strike or back up with evidence) tells you who the bloody account holder is. Please undelete it and take it to DR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information about the account precision and your statement their profile message is new. That furthermore proves their IT or communication team and their juridic team don't work together, and so, the license situation is complicated.
I don't follow your comments about the assumption of Flickr washing. I only say they didn't perform a deep legal analysis of what they are publishing when they created their account.
But I agree with you when you say the case should be discussed in DR if the case is complicated. I considered it as a simple, but I now understand we've different sensibilities about what a simple case is.
I will undelete it and create the DR tomorrow morning, currently, I'm going to sleep, good night. --Dereckson (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I won't begrudge you a good night's sleep! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, I've put the case in DR. --Dereckson (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typefaces are not copyrightable by US law[edit]

Hello, you've deleted some images such as File:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Fred Wolf logo.svg as being copyrighted. The image represents only stylized letters and simple geometric shapes, and is therefor not copyrightable under US law. The specific code can be found here, specifically points (a) and (e), " The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:" "(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring" & "(e) Typeface as typeface."

Further, the US House of Representatives solidified that code with this report: "The Committee has considered, but chosen to defer, the possibility of protecting the design of typefaces. A 'typeface' can be defined as a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters. The Committee does not regard the design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable 'pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work' within the meaning of this bill and the application of the dividing line in section 101." H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Congress, 2d Session at 55 (1976), reprinted in 1978 U.S. Cong. and Admin. News 5659, 5668. [1] (can't find an official link for that one).

So, while I agree that the design of the letters is certainly unique and subject to trademark laws, there is no legal way that a US company can have a copyright on a logo such as this. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,
I agree with you, typefaces aren't copyrighteable. You'll find a lot of them in our category Category:PD_ineligible.
The logo becomes an original work when, in addition to the typeface, there are something added, like in the Ninja Turtles the texture and effects.
I restored your logo and put the case in DR, so we can check furthermore if this is only typeface or if there were something added. --Dereckson (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 11:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

calling for discussion[edit]

You deleted File:General David McKiernan, ISAF -d.jpg, and a number of other images where flickrreview confirmed the image had been published under an appropriate CC liscense, when they were uploaded here. CC liscenses can't be clawed back.

There may have been some underlying error in how these images were uploaded. But are you sure you were authorized to delete images where flickrreview confirmed the liscense on your sole authority?

As I noted in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:James Stavridis visits the ISAF Joint Command at Kabul Afghanistan International Airport -c.jpg, you have nominated images for deletion, asserting there was "no element" justifying a {{PD-Gov}} liscense, when the image's description actually contained just the "element" you were looking for.

Can I ask why you used speedy deletion on some ISAFmedia images? I think the obvious question is whether some of these other images also contained proof you didn't recognize that they were PD DoD images. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted the ones from British/Australian/German/French armies and tried to license correctly the US ones. Then, I carefully recheck photos deleted to see if they are some without info, we need to investigate, I don't think them.
It's not my intention to delete any other isafmedia picture pending the DR closure. I also will open a new DR with all the other pictures instead to use speedy. --Dereckson (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also kept the picture with the release number, File:James Stavridis visits the ISAF Joint Command at Kabul Afghanistan International Airport -c.jpg, thank you to point it.
If you consider the element were so visible, I wonder why nobody see the CC-BY license weren't applicable...
ISAF photo by British Sergeant Chris Halton, RLC (RELEASED)
File:General David McKiernan, ISAF -d.jpg is from a British sergeant, according picture description, so crown copyright is applicable.
The problem is ISAF isn't the copyright holder, and so, not entitled to issue CC-BY license (what they don't want to, according the custom license in profile). --Dereckson (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you want I prepare a table with picture deleted and the source country? If it's not convincing, we could use a DR too for those. --Dereckson (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Hello,

Heureux de te revoir !

Si l'absence de compréhension de l'anglais (disons que je ne peux que m'améliorer...) n'est pas un obstacle au fait d'être admin sur Commons, je veux évidemment bien. Il y a un certain nombre de chose que je pourrais faire en plus effectivement...

Merci de me le proposer ! Bien à toi. --M0tty (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fondation Maeght[edit]

Suppression plurielle demandée et fichiers renseignés. --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 10:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vu, merci. --Dereckson (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voici la réponse attendue de la fondation :

Le droit de photographier donne la possibilité de faire des prises de vues à usage strictement privé et en aucun cas de les exploiter et surtout pas pour un usage commercial.

Toute utilisation doit faire l’objet d’une demande préalable auprès de la Fondation Maeght et des artistes ou des ayants droits des artistes, car les conditions et possibilités de reproduction sont très encadrées.

Cordialement,

Charlène Sokoloff
Chargée de Communication
Fondation Maeght, 06570 Saint-Paul-de-Vence, France
Un document joint indique la seule possibilité pour les plaquettes de promotions avec l'autorisation des auteurs et de l'ADAGP.
--- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 14:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. --Dereckson (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, pouvez vous faire un résumé de la situation? je prends la conversation en cours et j'avais travaillé sur Miro sur la base de photos de commons. Merci 82.226.100.164 07:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour,
Wikimedia Commons ne publie que des photos soit sous licence libre, soit dans le domaine public.
Les œuvres des sculpteurs et architectes bénéficient de la protection du droit d'auteur. Les photographies de sculptures et de bâtiments sont donc des œuvres dérivées d'œuvres protégées, et donc une "violation de copyright" pour simplifier.
Beaucoup de pays autorisent cependant comme exception au droit d'auteur la possibilité de prendre des photos dans l'espace public, c'est ce qu'on appelle la liberté de panorama. Il est ainsi possible de prendre des photos de bâtiments dont l'architecte n'est pas décédé depuis plus de 70 ans voire parfois de sculptures (mais en général il s'agit de sculptures installées de façon permanentes, par exemple celle qui ornerait un rond-point).
En France, (comme en Belgique et en Italie, ainsi que dans les pays de l'Europe de l'Est, mais au contraire de la plupart des autres pays européens), la loi n'admet pas cette possibilité.
Miró étant décédé en 1983, ses sculptures seront dans le domaine public le 1er janvier 2054 et pourront alors être librement photographiée. Dans l'intervalle, il ne nous est pas possible de publier ce type de photos. --Dereckson (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compris. et quant à ce courrier de la fondation Maeght ? Vatekor (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Les personnes ayant pris les photos se sont acquittées d'une licence honteuse de 5 € pour pouvoir avoir le droit de photographier.
Honteuse, car illégale : au regard des droits d'auteur, tout en chacun est libre de photographier ce qu'il veut, cela rentre dans l'exception de copie privée. --Dereckson (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hé bien .... :( Vatekor (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hellenic Army troops on parade.png[edit]

Hi, thanks for deleting it. I did not check to see if the account had been listed as questionable. I will keep it in mind though for future uploads. Thanks anyway :) --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for the barnstar! - PKM (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Dereckson (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression de deux photos[edit]

Bonjour,

Désolé de demander cela mais pouvez-vous supprimer deux photos que je viens de charger sur Commons. Il s'agit de photos de mon véhicule en Islande et j'ai chargé celles-ci en oubliant de flouter la plaque d'immatriculation. Merci d'avance et désolé encore pour cette erreur de débutant.

Voici les liens :

antonov14 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,
Pas de souci, j'ai supprimé les deux photos.
Si cela devait vous arriver à nouveau, vous pouvez directement télécharger par dessus une nouvelle version, et demander de supprimer l'ancienne. --Dereckson (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour,
Merci pour la suppression (et je vais éviter ce genre de bêtise). Pour l'éditeur de cartes postales d'Harfleur, E. Mellet, je ne sais pas (c'est le problème avec les cartes postales anciennes, cela a fait l'objet de pas mal de discussions sur Commons); on trouve des traces de lui dans les années 1880 (portraits) et plus après la Grande Guerre mais cela ne veut pas dire qu'il soit mort (il n'avait plus l'âge de combattre et de loin) avant 1923. Désolé de ne pas en savoir davantage. antonov14 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FOP - Commons:Bistro#Cit.C3.A9_radieuse_de_Marseille[edit]

Bonjour,

Sur le bistro est survenu une discussion au cours de laquelle est apparu la présence de photos de Le Corbusier en France, qu'il conviendrait de transférer sur fr. pour celles qui y sont utilisées. --Dereckson (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Il serait intéressant que tu transférasses d'ors et déjà File:Cour de l'unité d'habiation.jpg, pour que je puisse clôturer cette partie d'une DR. --Dereckson (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. J'ai mis un peu de temps, désolé.
Pour info, j'ai transféré ces photos qui me semblaient rentrer dans le cadre de l'« exception » de frwp :
Bonne soirée. --Coyau (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merci, j'ai supprimé les 5 et je regarde la suite de la PàS. --Dereckson (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asclepias s'inquiète de savoir s'il y aurait des photos qui ne rentreraient pas dans l'exception, et si oui, lesquelles et pourquoi.
Je lui ai donné mon avis sur les 3 photos restant dans la catégorie :
J'ai mis un mot sur le bistrot. --Coyau (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

creator[edit]

Bnojour, désolé d'intervenir à retardement, mais si ça peut encore t'éviter du travail, mieux vaut tard que jamais... Tu laisses entendre sur Commons:Bistro#Correction du modèle "Creator" que c'est quelque chose d'un peu délicat à faire, mais je crois qu'il suffit d'ajouter "and workshop à {{Creator}} et {{Name}}. A partir du moment où on a compris comment fonctionnent ces modèles, ça prend quelques minutes. Il y a une subtilité qui m'échappe. ? --Zolo (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euh oui, si tu fais cela, ça marquera "And workshop Paul Rubens" et pas "Paul Rubens and workshop", donc il faut recopier tout le switch juste après pour l'avoir à la fin et pas au début. --Dereckson (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

euh ben non Creator:Just a test --Zolo (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,
Dans ce diff, tu as laissé or workshop au lieu de and worskhop, voilà pourquoi ça ne marche pas (sinon, faut repercuter les choix ET sur creator ET sur name). --Dereckson (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah oui pardon, erreur de copier-coller, j'avais juste vérifé le français et l'allemand qui marchaient (Je sais bien qu'il faut changer à la fois name et creator, sinon mon exemple n'aurait pas marché en français non plus. Vu que tu parlais d'un autre changement et que je n'ai pas trop compris quoi, j'avais modifié le bac à sable plutôt que le modèle.)Zolo (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merci ![edit]

Merci à toi, pour avoir soumis et soutenu ma candidature en tant qu'admin, et merci pour ton gentil message sur ma page de discussion ! À bientôt ! --M0tty (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

suppression de"nénuphars du parc de Pamplemousse"[edit]

bonjour, suite ton message,la photo apparaît correct sur la page,aussi pourquoi l'enlever? je n'ai pas d'autre version de celle ci. il m'est demandé de changer la catégorie mise,dans pas mal de mes photos,peut tu me dire de façon pratique de procéder.je ne comprends pas les explications de commons merci , amicalement.

suite" nénuphars"[edit]

bonjour, j'ai bien pris note de ton action sur mes photos,et je t'en remercie. bonne continuation a toi Toutaitanous 2 (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fw: Category:La Pyramide Inversée, an urban legend[edit]

It's a pity all those photographs were finally deleted. Well, the urban legend linked with that pyramid is refered to the book "The Da Vinci Code". It's spoiler, so I'm not going to tell you any more until you tell me if you read the book, or watch the movie xD Regards, Kordas (sínome!) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.
About the pictures, we could transfer them on fr. as recent architecural work EDP and en. as fair use EDP. I will see that tomorrow --Dereckson (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Elizarova image deletion[edit]

Hi There - It looks like you have removed an image that User - Carpefemme took a long time seeking permission for from the model in question. The details are below of the image deleted - and permissions can be traceable in conversation between carpefemme and another editor. The image was only just released on commons by another editor who had blocked it. They were satisfied by an explicit statement of usage by the model - can it be replaced in commons once more please?

(Removing "Katia_Elizarova_opens_Swarovski_Runway_Rocks_in_London.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Dereckson because: Copyright violation: No permission - cf. http://pressmaterials.swarovski.com...) (undo)

Hello,
As far as I understood, it's only the model who agreed for the photo release, and not the photographer.
Please provide a documentation whether the photographer agreed to this release whether the model is the copyright holder or has been transferred the full exercise of the patrimonial rights to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
You'll find more information on the procedure to follow at Commons:OTRS.
Once the permission is received and handled by the OTRS volunteers, the pictures will be restored. --Dereckson (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Thanks - I'll just ask Swarovski - too good an image to not have on there! ;-)

LoicNewEraCracker.png[edit]

Since you were involved with Commons:Deletion_requests/File:LoicNewEraCracker.png, I should probably tell you about Commons:Deletion_requests/File:LoicNewEraCrackerEdited.png. The compromise we worked out apparently isn't acceptable. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp[edit]

We chatted in the past on IRC about a usurp request, and although I've managed to usurp all but the last two accounts (not counting Commons, but including huwiki with the 43 edits), my usurp request appears to be getting held up by special conditions that conflict with what's spelled out on COM:USURP. The discussion is going on here, particularly in the last 3 comments. Am I out of line? Where are these extra criteria coming from? In my opinion, this should be a clear-cut case for all the reasons I've outlined in my last post. Your unbiased opinion would be greatly appreciated. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a different reading of the following criteria on COM:USURP:
“Target account is unused, and has not been SUL reserved. Usurpation will usually be allowed if the Commons target account has been registered but never used (or has only deleted edits or entirely non-useful edits). In such a case, bureaucrats may at their discretion usurp even if the target account does not consent. However, usurpation will not be allowed in any event where the account has been reserved by somebody else as a Single Unified Login (SUL) account.”
You consider you can usurp if the target account is used but hasn't been SUL reserved. But the negation of not A and not B is A or B: you can usurp the account if (i) the account is unused AND (ii) the account hasn't been SUL reserved (the two conditions must be satisfied) = you can't usurp the account if the account is used or has been SUL reserved.
So the fact an account is used for real contributions (even a few ones) in another wiki is enough to deny a Commons usurp.
I'm perfectly aware commons. is one of the most difficult wiki for usurp, and it's why I adviced you to usurp first everywhere else.
The rationale is if the pl. bureaucrats don't consider the pl. edits negligibles, why should we? Especially when it's a shiny new account (created 27 January 2012)!
Now, I would also agree with you if you say "the only relevant contributions of Maky@plwiki are https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sulfasalazyna&diff=prev&oldid=29639221, https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z%C5%82udzenie_%28psychologia%29&diff=prev&oldid=29671789 and https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statyny&diff=prev&oldid=29672180, three spelling corrections.
But we can't know what the future user participation will be, so we can't say "yes, no problem, it would be very fair to deny him to use Commons under his name.".
For hrwiki, it will be easier: if you don't have an answer and have checked there isn't any active bureaucrat, you can ask on meta:requests/Username changes. --Dereckson (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there has been translation error. I read COM:USURP as referring to the Commons account, which is not in use and has no edits. This Commons account is not part of the SUL, and furthermore, the only reason the username is SUL reserved is because I was told do to so as part of the usurpation process. I will certainly look into the meta:requests/Username changes for hrwiki if I continue to see no response.
As for the plwiki account, according to the SUL info, it is not a "shiny new account". It was registered on 21 November 2008 and was not used until this year... and only for a few minor edits which I have mentioned numerous times and you have linked to above. I have not put in a usurpation request at plwiki because the user has already refused, so it never came down to a bureaucrat decision. It was my decision, largely because I don't want to be a dick and try to force this guy to give up an account on a wiki I won't even edit on. If the Commons bureaucrats were to let me usurp a Commons account that is not owned by either me or the plwiki user, you are not denying the plwiki user the right to contribute on Commons under his username—by the rules you are outlining, he would never be able to usurp it anyway.
Now if this whole dispute were analogous to two small children fighting over something (item A), and the parents (bureaucrats, in this case) ruled that because of the fighting, neither of us could have what we want, then that would make perfectly good sense. But in this case, one of the children (myself) asked nicely for something, was told by the parents to first ask the other child (plwiki user) to give something up (related item B), that other child refused but did not ever make any attempt to request item A, and now the parents are saying neither child can have access. I'm sorry, but this sounds more than a bit dysfunctional. This whole process has felt like the bureaucrats are encouraging me to pick a fight or walk away completely (by giving up the username I have moved into and have been trying to usurp) over what should be a non-issue. Again, please explain where I'm out of line? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google Belgique après l'accident de Sierre.png[edit]

Bonjour.
Nous allons faire simple :-)
Je ne saisis simplement pas la raison pour laquelle ma capture d'écran a été soumise à une suppression de Wikimedia Commons.
Pourriez-vous m'éclairer s'il vous plaît ?

Bonjour,
Commons héberge des média sous licence open source ou dans le domaine public.
Vous avez téléversé cette image en n'indiquant que vous la placiez sous licence Creative Commons Attribution Partage à l'identique (CC-BY-SA). Or, vous n'acquérez pas de droit d'auteur en réalisant une capture d'écran (sauf si vous préparez celle-ci d'une manière qui met votre faculté de création au service de la composition), puisqu'il s'agit d'un simple procédé technique de reproduction.
Le design d'un site Web est protégé par le droit d'auteur.
Le cas de Google est cependant compliqué : par un design aussi simple, il n'est pas impossible qu'un juge considère que l'image ne soit pas suffisement originale que pour être soumise au droit d'auteur.
Le logo Google est ainsi dans le domaine public, s'agissant uniquement de texte et de couleurs.
La procédure de suppression a pour but d'établir dans quel cas nous nous trouvons : ou bien l'image est originale, et la photo devra être supprimée pour respecter les droits d'auteur de Google, ou bien elle ne l'est pas, et elle pourra être conservée car dans le domaine public. --Dereckson (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Donc le problème n'est pas simple à gérer. Est-ce que demander à Google l'autorisation pour utiliser une capture d'écran de leur site internet pour le domaine public pourrait régler le problème ?
Vous pouvez toujours essayer, mais j'émets quelques doutes, dans la mesure où cela signifierait que Google autorise toute réutilisation de son design.
Or, si l'on consulte François Dubuisson, Alain Strowel, François Tulkens, Droit d'auteur et liberté d'expression: regards francophones, d'Europe et d'ailleurs, éd. Larcier, 2006, p. 40 (lire la page en ligne), l'on apprend que Google a par le passé pris des mesures contre cette réutilisation. --Dereckson (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai lancé la procédure. Seulement elle prend du temps pour être examinée (2 à 4 semaines).
Dois-je faire quelque-chose pour éviter que l'image ne soit supprimée en attendant ?
Bonjour,
Vous pouvez noter (en français ou en anglais, à votre convenance, Commons étant un projet international et multilingue, vous pouvez y donner un avis dans la langue de votre choix) les démarches effectuées sur la page de suppression. --Dereckson (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voilà la page a été mise à jour. La réponse de Google fût positive. Le fichier ne doit donc pas être supprimé de Commons. MD-5100 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bonne nouvelle. --Dereckson (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:47 tete de jeune fille.jpg[edit]

Bonjour,

Le ticket #2012022110005751 ne concerne pas ce fichier, ni d'ailleurs les autres que vous avez restauré dans la catégorie Category:Enrico Campagnola.

Merci de faire le nécessaire.--Bapti ✉ 16:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,
Grmbl. Merci.
Je m'étais basé sur :
Je fais le nécessaire pour cela et pour l'autre histoire durant le week-end. --Dereckson (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Je pense que la confusion vient d'un courriel de Stanzilla évoquant l'existance de la catégorie Category:Enrico Campagnola, courriel fusionné avec le ticket. Mais l'ayant-droit ne donne l'autorisation que pour le fichier File:Offrande par Enrico Campagnola.jpg (et un autre, mais il s'avère qu'elle ne détient finalement pas les droits d'auteurs).--Bapti ✉ 14:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour,
Quand comptes-tu faire le nécessaire ? En l'état, une centaine de violations des droits d'auteurs ont été remises en ligne sur Wikimedia Commons...--Bapti ✉ 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bonsoir,
J'ai envoyé un courriel expliquant la situation le 23. J'envoie un ultimatum de suite. --Dereckson (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Envoyé. --Dereckson (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...[edit]

You deleted File:Afghan child is given a football.jpg. Your deletion justification was: "‎(Copyright violation: http://www.flickr.com/people/isafmedia/ - ISAF doesn't allow commercial redistribution of pictures. This is not a CC-BY picture.)"

CC-by liscenses can't be clawed back. That is why commons rules require a free liscense -- one that can't be clawed back.

May I suggest that if you think there was some reason to challenge the liscensing on this -- or any ohter ISAF image, where {{Flickrreview}} already confirmed it was properly liscensed, it would be better to initiate a full deletion discussion, rather than to employ speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I were under the misunderstanding we've reached a consensus on this matter, now the Undelete request for the previous bunch of files were closed as Keep undelete and the {{PD-Afghanistan}} matter is solved.
I'm opening a DR instead. --Dereckson (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liscensing is tricky. If a US GI is embedded with the forces of other countries then I think pictures they take are {{PD-USGov-Military}} -- correct? How often did that happen? I dunno. But it certainly happens sometimes. I suggest, for this reason, none of these images should be speedy deleted, based on the sole judgment of a single individual. I suggest they should all have multiple sets of eyes look at them.
Update: I looked at the DRV for the first 45 ISAF images you speedy deleted. I must be growing old -- I didn't remember initiating it, or participating in it. I do stand by what I wrote.
After reading that whole discussion I don't think a consensus was reached authorizing speedy deletion. IMO, a heads-up on the uploader's talk page should be a requirement for all speedily deleted images, except perhaps indefinitely blocked vandals. Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I request that for any of the other 45 images instead of a deletion log that says "deleted page File:Gedenkfeier.jpg (Copyright violation: http://www.flickr.com/people/isafmedia/ - ISAF doesn't allow commercial redistribution of pictures. This is not a CC-BY picture.)" you use something like "as per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-03#Non US ISAFmedia files" Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assessments/translate/fr[edit]

Could you also translate the WMF line towards the bottom of the template? Thanks! :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I haven't finished yet. I contributed from my OXFAM bookshop where I'm volunteer (but we close at 17:45 CEST). --Dereckson (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bump! :P -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Travail dérivé - Arrondissement de Lons-le-Saunier[edit]

Bonjour ; suite à notre récent échange sur le bistro, j'ai uploadé le fichier ici ; à comparer avec File:Arrondissement lons le saunier.png uploadé par User:DalGobboM (anciennement Lofo7) pour savoir si je dois créditer ce contributeur en plus de User:Poulpy ; d'avance merci (un autre pb est que sur la page le rendu en PNG de mon fichier SVG n'est pas miraculeux). Cordialement, Michel421 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non, ce n'est pas un travail dérivé du PNG, le seul point commun étant les informations ou le principe de coloration, ce qui n'est pas protégé par le droit d'auteur (un moyen "simple" pour déterminer la différence entre une oeuvre originale et une oeuvre triviale est "sur 10 personnes à qui l'on demande de réaliser une carte, est-ce que 7 ou plus s'y seraient pris de façon similaire ?" ; si la réponse est affirmative, nous sommes probablement en deça du seuil d'originalité). --Dereckson (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, merci. Michel421 (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citron pressé[edit]

Bonjour Dereckson. Regarde dans la Category:Lemon squeezers si tu trouves mieux. Père Igor (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De la notification des contributeurs[edit]

Ok c'est noté merci pour l'info Dereckson, il est vrai que je maîtrise pas encore bien les règles de bases de Commons, merci pour l'aide proposé, je n'y manquerais pas si j'ai des questions. --Woozz un problème? 11:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claudine SCHMID.jpg[edit]

Have you received a response from OTRS regarding this file? It's been a while since you tagged it with {{OTRS pending}}. Logan Talk Contributions 06:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the photographer said he transferred rights to the photography subject, they both still are to be contacted for a more formal permission (the photographer to confirm this is not only a right to reuse but also a right to relicense, the subject for the license). --Dereckson (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Occidental Avenue South (Seattle, Washington).jpg[edit]

Merci d'avoir attiré mon attention sur ce candidat au trophée de la plus longue DR Je viens de donner mon avis. Tes scruplues t'honorent : personnellement j'aurais supprimé aussi sec. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mlqmark2jf.JPG and Philippine Public Domain law[edit]

Regarding your deletion of File:Mlqmark2jf.JPG. I'd like to point out this discussion last February concerning works by the Philippine Government, and our policy on non-copyright restrictions. Previously, photographs of Philippine public works were problematic because of a clause in the PD law, which otherwise is identical to US PD law.

I have updated the licensing entry for the Philippines. The file can now be kept under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} as a non-copyrightable work of the government, rather than treating it as a private artwork. Please restore it.--Obsidi♠nSoul 09:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please first provide documentation this is a work of the government. --Dereckson (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the plaque again. Note that I'm not sure if it's the same plaque as it's not my picture and I can't see it anymore since you've deleted it. But IIRC it's the same. Please note what the seal says: "Philippines Historical Committee 1948". The PHC existed during the American Commonwealth of the Philippines and it's a branch of the government responsible for the preservation of the national history of the Philippines. Shortly after WW2, the PHC installed about 400 of those plaques in historical places in the country.
That committee is now the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (and thus recent plaques generally have "National Historical Institute" or "National Historical Commission" in place of "Philippines Historical Committee", though the general appearance of the plaques remain the same). Have a look at similar plaques by the PHC commissioned at around the same time period for some historical places in the Philippines:
If that's still not enough evidence for you, the plaques and other public monuments are also mentioned in Republic Act No. 841 of the Philippines (approved into law on April 7, 1953) as specifically under the jurisdiction of the local government and under the management of the PHC.--Obsidi♠nSoul 14:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is why the PHC became the copyright holder if they ordered those commemorative plaques to local artists (a sculptor and a writer I guess?). To compare the situation, if a city decides to order a statue to some sculptor, he's still the copyright holder. --Dereckson (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The structure itself are obvious templates that look virtually the same except for minor changes to the PHC/NHI/NHCP logo through the years. Its ornamental aspects are not original and thus can not be classified as artistic. The text likewise can not be classified as literature or poetic. They're functional (though a bit florid). You might as well argue that street signs are copyrighted by the local tinsmiths. Finally:
Republic Act No. 8293, Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11. A "work of the Government of the Philippines" is a work created by an officer or employee of the Philippine Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled corporations as a part of his regularly prescribed official duties.
Republic Act No. 10066, Article III, Section 7, mentions the addition of official heritage markers as a requirement for designating cultural properties (and thus part of the official duties of the PHC/NHI/NHCP and thus a work of the Government). (An official heritage marker shall likewise be placed on an immovable cultural property to identify the same as important cultural property.)--Obsidi♠nSoul 23:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing is copyrighteable, the file has to be restored in public domain / threshold of originality and not in public domain / work of governement...
When somebody (here a government agency) contract a freelance, it's not an employee, so those provisions don't apply. It's why I don't understand where you see a transfer of the copyright to the government. --Dereckson (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are your government agencies required by law to erect statues or murals? No. PHC/NHI/NHCP in contrast is required by law to provide such markers to places designated as cultural properties. And thus anyone commissioned for them are making them in the course of their regularly-assigned duties. These are works-made-for-hire not commissioned artworks. So yes, they are both PD by virtue of not achieving the threshold of originality and because it is a work of the government.--Obsidi♠nSoul 00:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand your rationale, but don't share it. I really can't see why because an agency is required to do something, poof they got copyright. Please provide documentation the work for hire contained provision to transfer copyright. Or argue it's below the threshold of originality on COM:UNDELETE (the easiest would be to move this discussion). --Dereckson (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. More hoops to jump through? You know what? Forget it. The picture isn't even mine, nor in my area of interest. I spent hours in the past days just trying to find information for it and the laws pertaining to it while you just sit back and find every single thing that can be nitpicked of a picture of a fucking sign that I know you know full damn well is public property.

What else did you want me do, eh? Take it to ten more noticeboards, fill a questionnaire, and send flowers to a Commons admin of my choice? Maybe book a trip to that city where the picture was taken, pay whatever fees are necessary for getting proof of a plaque built 70 years ago being public property? Hire some private investigators to dig up the original contract if it still exists and find out which local artisan built it in 1948? Arrest the uploader and interrogate him? Maybe I should mail physical copies signed by the president himself with a complementary massage and a round-trip ticket to Hawaii as well?

99% of the time I've spent here is spent arguing against the bureaucratic red tape. And for all the good I've done here, the only feeling I've ever gotten from it is the strong feeling that uploading anything to Commons is universally considered a crime until proven otherwise. I'm a volunteer like you, not the fucking defendant in a court case.

I think I'm finally fed up with Commons. Thanks for showing me that. Because when you think of it really, why did I even bother? Good day.--Obsidi♠nSoul 19:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry of your feelings and agree it could be difficult to make correct inquiries to determine who are the copyright holders of some photo elements. I also understand the frustration created by the huge responsibility we have to ensure to people reusing our pictures they're indeed in the public domain. A way to act would be to do more lobbying to generalize freedom of panorama copyright exceptions. Some local chapters are currently taking care of these issues and help could be welcomed on this level to create awareness campaign, documentation, etc. --Dereckson (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you want a revolution? Why didn't you say so? I'll get back to you in 2050 when I overthrow the current government and pass a bill specifically putting all commemorative plaques bought for and funded by the government as unambiguously government property. Too many unknowns (who mixed the cement, who supplied the iron, who designed the lettering, who gave coffee to the latter workers?) and loopholes in the current law (if it's not mentioned by the exact name, it must be illegal), and you never know if a 100-year old tinsmith might decide to sue you know.--Obsidi♠nSoul 11:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:BeiraLake2012.jpg[edit]

Hello,

This is regarding the deletion of File:BeiraLake2012.jpg. As the guidance of uploading a Flickr, we are free to upload images which are under the license "Some rights reserved" into Wikipedia.

Original Link - http://www.flickr.com/photos/indi/7146017043/

This photo is licensed under "Some rights reserved" by the respective owner of the photo, Indi Samarajiva better known as Indi.ca. Also as the Creative Commence site we are free to do the following which I have listed below.

1. To Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work. 2. To Remix — to adapt the work. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Author of the photo haven't applied any conditions when using the photo. So, I kindly request you to restore the photo and also what was the reason to delete the photo? Cheers!

Good afternoon,
You're absolutely true on the Flickr comprehension.
Since this deletion request, we don't trust Indi Samarajiva / Indi.ca licenses anymore, as some of his photo could be sold to a press agency, the AFP, which, as far as we're informed, requires by contract an EXCLUSIVE license, forbidding original photographer to license under Creative Commons terms the picture.
We don't have the elements to check every photo licensing in deeper detail, so we don't allow those photographies, by precaution principle. --Dereckson (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Can't disagree with a person like you who knows what he is talking about, haha. I would like to call off this discussion and thank you for your time. Keep up the good work. CoolGin (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Template:20minutos.es/es[edit]

We can translate it to Spanish, but I note that 20minutos is a really bad source, they upload many copyrighted works as own works on their site, and it causes a lot of problems here. Cheers. Lobo (howl?) 09:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 minutes publish press information and license THEIR and ONLY THEIR pictures under CC-BY-SA 3.0. They HAVE NEVER CLAIMED every picture uploaded on their site were under this license. They HAVE NEVER CLAIMED every picture on the site were licensed under Creative Commons. It's well explained on the template (note to the uploader). --Dereckson (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the section from Bad sources to Problematic sources.
If the amount of problems is so high, you could prepare a review system, like for Flickr. Any experienced Commons contributor will be able to see if it's a 20 minutes pictures, or an external picture.
Even without this system, the template will allow to ease the process, tracking new files in a dedicated category. --Dereckson (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Avertissement de suppression de fichier multimédia[edit]

Bonjour de je suis l'utilisateur Damien Martinet à qui vous avez le 8 Aout 2012 envoyé une demande de suppression pour mes logos que je tiens à dire son créer par moi-même et qui ne sont que des suggestions et des oeuvres presonnelles pour les chaînes existentes et non des copies. J'ai bien reçu votre second message "

Cordialement, Dereckson (d) 09:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  Bonjour, J'ai compris qu'il s'agissait en fait de nouvelles suggestions de logo que vous avez réalisé et non des logos des chaînes. J'adapte la DR en conséquence. --
Dereckson (d) 08:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)"

Suite à votre deuxième message je voudrais savoir si pouvez annuler la supression de mes logos (demande de restauration)
Je sais aussi que cette décision intervient à la suite d'une demande de la part d'un membre du forum LENODAL qui je pense est inscrit ici!
Je déplore que ce membre à peut dire des diffamations à mon égar et j'éspère sincerement que il y aura réparation !!

Sinon monsieur veuillez acceptez mes salutions les plus distingué
               TRES CORDIALEMENT
 Damien Martinet

Bonjour,
Vous pouvez indiquer sur la page de suppression pourquoi vous pensez que vos propositions de logo rentrent dans le scope de Wikimedia Commons, c'est-à-dire que vous expliquez (en français ou en anglais, comme vous préférez) en quoi est-ce que ces logos ont un caractère informatif, par exemple en indiquant le concept qu'ils illustrent (ce qui validerait le critère usage éducatif).
Je ne connais aucunement l'existence du forum que vous citez et vous garantit qu'il sera fait application des règles de Wikimedia Commons et non de la volonté de personnes extérieures. --Dereckson (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Up![edit]

Excuse moi, peut tu expliquer la raison de cette modification? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir,
Oui, c'est en cours de discussion ici : Commons talk:Up!#Purpose of a tool.
La raison est que ce passage restreint artificiellement les droits de l'utilisateur du logiciel, en voulant réserver son usage pour certaines choses.
Il me semble que chaque utilisateur de Commons Up! a le droit de décider s'il veut réserver son usage pour le téléversement de certains fichiers, ou si au contraire, il veut l'utiliser comme outil de téléversement universel. C'est son droit le plus strict, et c'est à lui de décider, et non au créateur du logiciel.
C'est aussi en complète contradiction avec 40 ans d'histoire de l'informatique et plus largement avec l'histoire de l'humanité, qui a toujours détourné des sens premiers les diverses inventions (je citais en exemple les mouchoirs en papier si populaire aujourd'hui initialement sortis par la marque Kleenex, qui étaient à la base prévu non pour se moucher mais se démaquiller).
--Dereckson (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr review question[edit]

All I did was what we usually do: make sure the image is the same one and that it is licensed as stated. Nothing had led me to believe there might be any Flickrwashing issues or anything like that (I see the uploader has replied on the deletion-nom page). Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought it were more evident when we see “old” pictures to double check and raise signals. --Dereckson (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porn-no.png[edit]

File:Porn-no.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting removal of a copyright violation[edit]

At File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG you reverted removal of a copyright violation. Why? Rd232 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(i) The file is currently discussed in DR.
(ii) The file is absolutely not useful without the logo.
The only logic thing to do is to close the DR. And to have the Mario logo visible to restore it n one day in the future. --Dereckson (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now, go and talk to Yann, who didn't consider it's a derivative work and closed it as Kept.
Kept: Graffiti is illegal, therefore no copyright. Yann (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC) --Dereckson (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yann is completely wrong, as I already told him. See User talk:Yann. And please be clear that neither (i) nor (ii) are reasons to revert removal of a copyright violation. Rd232 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you were right about (i), we'd delete first images and discuss them only after... --Dereckson (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not the same as editing out part of it and uploading the new version, since all versions remain available in the file history for viewing for everyone. That said, your reversion was actually correct from the point of view of COM:OVERWRITE - the new version should be a separate file, and the old one deleted. Hence File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg. Rd232 (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help: no-FoP Italy[edit]

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About your notification. You should have used the COM:AN page or targeted only administrators implied in FoP DR (I belong to this category).
About your request. Maybe in January, have currently other priorities. --Dereckson (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Raoli ✉ (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the whole discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Dereckson/Archives. You have new messages at INeverCry's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

If you're going to post rude remarks on my talk, I'd rather you not post there at all. INeverCry 20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for resolving this. INeverCry 20:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dereckson/Archives/02&oldid=92132389"